Mandatory Safety Training, yes or no?

Until today, I would have said "no" if mandatory. Well, today I watched a guy (new gun owner it appears) who obviously hadn't a clue about gun safety blow off his own finger. Yes, I literally saw the man shoot himself before my own eyes and saw the blood gushing from what remained of his finger as his wife and a couple of by-stander children gasped in horror.

It took all of about 5 seconds to go from a bad initial decision to a traumatic, and probably lifelong, injury. He shoots one shot, and the gun malfunctions. So he drops the mag without clearing the chamber (mistake #1), grabs the MUZZLE with his left hand (mistake #2), while keeping his finger on the trigger (mistake #3) and proceeds to push on the slide. Next thing you know, BANG! Lucky for him, he had just turned the gun away from pointing directly at his gut when it fired. He appeared to have not even a slight hint that anything he was doing was dangerous...could have just as easily shot another patron.

Scares the hell out of me to think about the high cost of carelessness and improper training. When that bullet leaves the chamber, its gone and you cannot call it back, no matter what the consequence...it is gone and could take an innocent child's life, or just bury up in the dirt...it is out of your control at that point. We (responsible gun owners) all understand that gun safety is paramount, and that 4 simple rules will prevent the vast majority of accidents, because we are taught that, either by our families or by an instructor. Who is teaching these folks that grow up in gunless homes and decide at the age of 35 to buy their first pistol and head down to the range? These folks "don't know what they don't know" so we can hardly blame them.

Sorry for the long-winded rant guys (and gals) but this incident today really has me considering the need for a different approach.

What an unfortunate and unnecessary tragedy. Of course, there is that survival of the fittest thing, and perhaps that man should have never set eyes on a bang stick.

Were you instructing him or just in the right place at the right time?

kwguy

April 2, 2013, 11:50 PM

Oh man. That sucks. You would think at that age, understanding the gravity of his purchase, that he would 'educate himself', especially if he's new to firearms.

Not to segue, but you also see that with motorcycles somewhat often.

I really hate 'mandatory' anything, but that's a tough one. It's easy to say 'well, another Darwin award' recipient', but you really don't wanna see that happen to anyone, especially when this individual is just joining in this.

Jlr2267

April 2, 2013, 11:53 PM

What an unfortunate and unnecessary tragedy. Of course, there is that survival of the fittest thing, and perhaps that man should have never set eyes on a bang stick.

Were you instructing him or just in the right place at the right time?

No...happened to be taking a break and watching this guy who'd just walked onto the range.

holdencm9

April 2, 2013, 11:56 PM

Why didn't you interject after he had pointed it at himself? That's what we call a teachable moment.

Despite the occasional idiot, I don't think we can legislate common sense. Even well-trained individuals (who are the only ones in the room qualified to handle that Glock!) can have "oops" moments.

JohnBT

April 2, 2013, 11:57 PM

"today I watched a guy"

For all we know he's had a safety class. Look at all the bad drivers who have passed driver's ed.

tomrkba

April 2, 2013, 11:58 PM

Until today, I would have said "no" if mandatory. Well, today I watched a guy (new gun owner it appears) who obviously hadn't a clue about gun safety blow off his own finger. Yes, I literally saw the man shoot himself before my own eyes and saw the blood gushing from what remained of his finger as his wife and a couple of by-stander children gasped in horror.

His fault, his consequence. He played fast and loose under "Big Boy Rules"/Darwin/Reality and lost. Tex Grubner learned the same lesson the hard way. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3kJ6SU3ycs) Changing the law will do nothing other than invite the police into his life and possible charges. We already have too much government customer service (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kassP7zI0qc) in our lives. Various legislatures are turning this country into a rubber room to gain votes and we're paying the consequences already.

This is one reason why I do not advocate for mandatory training. Some people do not listen and need to learn through experience, though his experience was a bit rougher than most. I bet he becomes very conscientious about gun safety after this event.

jerkface11

April 2, 2013, 11:59 PM

Why would you think that was a good idea anyway? I doubt it takes special training to know the bullets come out that end.

newfalguy101

April 3, 2013, 12:03 AM

Lets not forget, In the gun world, Mandatory ANYTHING only really applies to guns purchased/transfered from an FFL............

22-rimfire

April 3, 2013, 12:06 AM

Mandatory safety training... No. I encourage folks to take classes on shooting which would include safety training, but I would never support mandatory trainig. I don't particularly care for the fact that shooting is a requirement for a HCP in Tennessee.

People do stupid stuff. Hopefully they or bystanders don't get hurt.

InkEd

April 3, 2013, 12:09 AM

No mandatory training should not be required.

Firearms come with User Guides and Safety Instructions. If you choose to disregard them then it is your fault. I feel bad for the guy but common sense would tell you to take your finger off the trigger. His missing finger will not really mess him up too much in life (unless he was professional hand model) and serve as reminder to be careful when dealing with potentially dangerous things.

If you do some serious thinking on the subject, you'll probably realize your initial view (no mandatory training) is correct. IMHO you were probably just shocked (possibly even a little grossed out) by it happening right in front of you.

Onward Allusion

April 3, 2013, 12:12 AM

Lots of times, crap like that happens real fast. My first reaction would have been - Er, what the...? A second or two would go by and before you know it - no finger on the poor schmuck.

As for mandatory training, who decides on what kind of training? Also, is mandatory training required to write your Senator or Representative? Is it required to be informed before a person goes out and votes some idiot into office?

When I got into firearms way back when, I read up on guns. Yes, I READ the manual and found books on the subject. It might sound funny but growing up in Chicago, there weren't a hell of a lot of people who were really into shooting, even back in the day. It is a personal responsibility to get up to speed on anything that one intends on picking up as a sport, hobby, profession...etc. No legal requirement will save people from having a momentary lapse or just being plain stupid.

mrvco

April 3, 2013, 12:13 AM

I would support mandatory gun safety training if it was done at the grade school level. Even if you don't own a gun, you should at least know how to make a gun safe and not be scared of it. I'd say this is a valuable life skill on par with math, reading, etc.

JRH6856

April 3, 2013, 12:16 AM

What was it 1911Tuner said? “If you're stupid, life can be a lot harder. It can also be a lot shorter.” Or something like that.

If Sex Ed in public schools is mandatory, then so should be firearms education. They are both safety training for the safe exercise of a fundamental right.

silicosys4

April 3, 2013, 12:20 AM

People fall off ladders, should we have mandatory ladder safety training?
While it was an unfortunate and tragic accident that no doubt was very traumatic, and im sorry he had to learn a very hard lesson, he was an adult and was capable of taking safety and handling training on a voluntary basis, and free to do so at any time. He was responsible for his own safety, as are we all. It comes down to policing yourself, or thinking that others should have that responsibility. Unfortunately, mandatory means imposing your thoughts on the matter upon others. I can't agree with that when you have options to increase your safety in the matter that don't impose on others, such as finding a private range or club that has a diligent RO.

Taking safety classes is a very good idea and should be encouraged at every opportunity, made universally and easily available, and free IMO....but not mandatory.

The fact that his gun could very easily have been pointed in a direction that would have meant the bullet hitting another person after blowing off his finger would be pretty disturbing to me. I don't like public ranges for that reason, and would be looking for a more private area, or a club that does require safety training for its members if you have that option.

I'm sorry you had that experience, traumatic experiences like that will stay with you forever, but you'll be safer for it. Fortunately, there was not a second person hurt, and it wasn't a debilitating injury

Jlr2267

April 3, 2013, 12:27 AM

Why didn't you interject after he had pointed it at himself? That's what we call a teachable moment.
It all happened in just a few seconds

JohnsXDM

April 3, 2013, 12:32 AM

I got my mandatory training back in 1965, when I turned 12 and dad bought me my first .22, a Remington Nylon 66. Dad was a tough old school type. I'm sure I did not enjoy the "training" but it must have stuck cause the only things I've ever shot were things I was aiming at!

Lightshot

April 3, 2013, 12:32 AM

I would not be against some sort of mandatory information presented to gun buyers, at the time of purchase. Something along the lines of the four rules, how to make the gun safe, and how to properly install a gun lock. A little information can go a long way, especially for people who may not want to admit what they do not know.

Most people on here take the basics for granted but they are not so intuitive to all people. Just the other day I watched a new gun owner try to install a cable trigger lock behind the trigger rather than through the action, with a round left in the chamber. Thank god it was just a teachable moment, but a minute of instruction before he had left the store could have prevented that dangerous situation.

Tim the student

April 3, 2013, 12:36 AM

No.

22-rimfire

April 3, 2013, 12:40 AM

I was watching Kindergarten Cop the other day and the kids were taught not to talk to stranges. A stranger enters..... Stranger! Stranger! Stranger! That is about the extent of firearms training in schools.... Gun! Don't touch!

Jlr2267

April 3, 2013, 12:44 AM

The fact that his gun could very easily have been pointed in a direction that would have meant the bullet hitting another person after blowing off his finger would be pretty disturbing to me.
Yes, I guess that's the part that really bothers me. He lost his finger so we can shrug it off as a learning experience and give a Darwin Award. But what about the next one...maybe an innocent by-stander gets a permanent headache...can we, as responsible gun owners, offer no solutions to this growing problem, and live with that? I think we have to come to grips with the reality that we, as a community, need to offer real solutions before other solutions are imposed on us.

kwguy

April 3, 2013, 12:46 AM

It really is a personal responsibility issue. If everyone took more responsibility for things in their lives, then less involvement would be 'needed' (probably the wrong word) by the gov't.

It not only applies to firearms, but to many other aspects of our lives as well.

Having the gov't do anything often does not make it more efficient or better in any way, and often times, makes it counterproductive and more difficult.

HorseSoldier

April 3, 2013, 12:47 AM

I'm personally of mixed thoughts on the issue.

On principle, I'm a fan of constitutional carry like we have here in Alaska.

More practically, I prefer the concept of those states where a concealed carry permit requires completion of some minimal standard of training that you can accomplish in a weekend or whatever. I see a coherent logic in the idea that on your private property you should be able to have and carry pretty much whatever you want, but if you want to carry in a place where other members of the public are at risk for your potential incompetence you should meet some minimum standards.

In other words, the drivers license model.

The downside to this is cost and a related inherent bias against poorer people. I don't know what the concealed carry classes run elsewhere, but here in AK a concealed carry course runs about $200-250. (Even though we don't have any CCW requirement for carry in state, we still have a permitting process in place for those who want one for travel and reciprocity.) For someone with a limited income, that could be pretty painful. In addition, at least up here, it's not like you can jump right in to a class this next weekend or whatever -- I don't know how this compares to places like TX and Utah -- but again, our permits are not exactly high demand items since they're not necessary.

But maybe my thoughts on training requirements are partly fed by work in law enforcement, which tends to expose me to not just the criminal minded chunk of society but also the just plain stupid chunk of society on an excessive basis. Without any mandatory training requirements up here, and with one of the highest densities of firearms per capita on the planet we just don't have a lot of issues with ADs in public places and such. I don't think statistically we're off the charts with accidental shootings, and our homicide/felony assault rates are pretty unremarkable, so by and large people who are carrying aren't doing the wrong thing or the dumb thing with weapons. (And the ones who do the wrong thing would presumably be no more deterred by a reinstatement of our permit system than they are in Chicago, etc.)

kwguy

April 3, 2013, 12:51 AM

I think we have to come to grips with the reality that we, as a community, need to offer real solutions before other solutions are imposed on us

Kinda what I'm thinking about. We can fix our own problems much more efficiently. Take the issue of school security. No matter where you stand on 'armed people in schools', as soon as the last tragedy was committed, the NRA had a solution relatively quickly. The gov't is still working on nonsense bans and things that don't work. And they're not even very efficient about it.

There is a saying, kind of paraphrasing here: 'don't ask for help that you really don't want'. Sometimes, not being proactive about a problem is like asking the gov't for 'help' that we really don't want.

gym

April 3, 2013, 12:57 AM

I agree, they really need to keep pace with so many people getting permits who are not, "gun savvy" at all. saw this coming and have mentioned it as many here have. I only go to my local range during the week "normally" and stay 15 minutes to a half hour. Most folks are indeed rank armatures.
I had a new M&P choke on some federal" ammo after firing another brand perfectly last week. I tap racked and it would not clear, but that gun stayed pointed downtown, while I popped the mag out , "the slide had to be manipulated to clear the double feed, but it was no problem as long as you know not to release the slide until you get second bullet out of the way, and clear the one in the pipe without slapping the slide up against the round "stuck between the feed ramp and the magazine". I can see how not understanding the mechanics could easily cause a death or injury.
These common day occurrences are not engrained in newbies, they will wrestle with the gun with the hope of "fixing the problem", It's like flying a flight simulator and getting into a real plane, you don't get a do over. Some sort of training involving the mechanics of how the slide magazine and firing pin work in conjunction to create the explosion that launches the projectile should be mandatory, it is also a bad thing for a new gun owner to sustain a life changing wound over something as simple as this. Perhaps they should have to spend a few hours with a certified instructor
who can show then how a gun works.
I just put one out for the night, in a bedside holster, as I did for 40 years, and almost did it in the dark so as not to wake my wife, until I realized a shot going off might be more disturbing, so I turned on the lights.
I try not to take things for granted, like putting everything back even little things, after I use them

silicosys4

April 3, 2013, 01:00 AM

Yes, I guess that's the part that really bothers me. He lost his finger so we can shrug it off as a learning experience and give a Darwin Award. But what about the next one...maybe an innocent by-stander gets a permanent headache...can we, as responsible gun owners, offer no solutions to this growing problem, and live with that? I think we have to come to grips with the reality that we, as a community, need to offer real solutions before other solutions are imposed on us.

That almost happened to me one time, I was shooting with a buddy, and his friend I didn't know. The guy I didn't know shot a semi auto, then after the 4th or 5th shot he lowered the gun, and out of the corner of my eye I saw him start to turn it over in his hands to look at it....cocked and chambered, mag in. Before i could say anything, He accidentally hit the trigger and sent a bullet about a foot in front of my stomach. Deafened me, and singed my arm with powder.

You know what my real solution after that was? Make sure that I was on private land to shoot, or somewhere secluded on public land, and to not shoot with or around people I don't know. When I shoot with people unfamiliar with my guns, or on my property, I establish safety rules, familiarize them with the firearms, and assert that I am an authority over them when they hold my gun and what I say goes. This includes no loaded mags in the guns while in side the house (range is outside on private land) muzzles downrange unless bolt is back and mag out, etc.

I AM adamant about my personal safety and paranoid to an extent when it comes to being around strangers and their guns in uncontrolled situations. But this doesn't come at the expense of their personal freedoms, just in my willingness to be around them and their firearms and my attitude when unfamiliar people handle my firearms.

kwguy

April 3, 2013, 01:05 AM

On principle, I'm a fan of constitutional carry like we have here in Alaska

I was up your way a while back, and of course, during my visit there, I just had to visit on of the LGS's. My buddy was looking at one of the new .380's, and one of the customers there started extoling the virtues of the 9mm over the .380, etc... You know the drill, happens all the time. He was a nice enough guy and all, and I was taking in that local culture, just enjoying the day and conversion. Then out of the blue, he takes out his CCW DAO 9mm pistol (I forget which one it was), and as if to show me an 'example of what a 9mm looks like', just hands it over to me, fully loaded and says, 'See'? I just wouldn't feel comfortable handing a total stranger my fully loaded, ready to go CCW :what:. That surprised me a bit. I carefully handed it back to him, and said 'nice pistol, thanks for letting me see...', and back in his holster it went.

That kind of blew me away, and I didn't really know what to think. Not sure what that has to do with mandatory education, but I feel it illustrates vast differences in the way people act. 'Cookie cutter' rules definitely don't always apply.

316SS

April 3, 2013, 01:22 AM

But what about the next one...maybe an innocent by-stander gets a permanent headache...can we, as responsible gun owners, offer no solutions to this growing problem, and live with that? I think we have to come to grips with the reality that we, as a community, need to offer real solutions before other solutions are imposed on us.

You have two faulty premises: First, that a gun owner should be presumed unsafe until he can prove otherwise; second, that mandatory safety training could or would have prevented this incident.

A person should be presumed fit to exercise their fundamental rights until proven otherwise, even if that proof comprises damage to people or property. If you accept the idea that people need to be coddled to behave properly, the logical leap to statism is a simple one.

arizona98tj

April 3, 2013, 01:30 AM

A week ago, I bought my ump-teenth (yes, that is a big number) firearm, a Springfield XD-S. I opened the case...right on top of everything, a 6"x4.5" red and white WARNING card. (in two languages, front and back)

First sentence:

"You risk injury or death by mishandling this firearm."

After that are instructions to read the owner's manual, keep firearms away from kids, if you don't understand something....seek professional advice, avoid shooting indoors without proper ventilation....and so on and so forth.

If the person opts to ignore this large RED and WHITE warning card, what can you say? I grew up as a farm kid way back when.....sometimes I didn't listen to my Dad like I should have....I learned the hard way in those cases.

JRH6856

April 3, 2013, 01:47 AM

Training, in the form of repetitive physical action, creates and reinforces habitual action. Practicing the proper action in response to likely situations creates habitual action which one reverts to when faced with that situation. Habitual actions are executed without forethought. When under pressure, and without the proper habitual action in place, an individual is very likely to revert to the habit most often used in the most similar situation instead of thinking through the current situation to determine the proper course of action. The substituted habitual action may very well be the wrong one.

At a range, with family watching, his gun jams after the first shot.He is under performance pressure in in front of an attentive audience. Instead of executing the correct action, he tries to force a malfunctioning piece of equipment to work. He may be in the habit of pounding on his keyboard to speed up his computer. Or slapping the radio when he can't get a station tuned. The one habit he clearly had not developed is the correct malfunction drill.

leadcounsel

April 3, 2013, 02:28 AM

Required. Nope.

It's a real slippery slope. Like requiring a license for having kids. Who decides/grants the license? Fundamental rights should not be subjected to licensing and such.

Guess what. Military and Police have lots of mandatory training.

Having been in the Army and all around the world with the Army for a minute... and dialed in to all sorts of investigations for accidents, I can tell you that the Army has a shockingly high number of accidental discharges, negligent discharges, lost/misplaced/stolen firearms, etc. Again, a shockingly high number, in elite combat units.

"Training" is only as good as the person interested in receiving it. Some people get it and some don't.

Any person in the profession of arms, or interested in arms, should be voluntarily interested in learning and applying safety. There should be no need for requiring it.

Jlr2267

April 3, 2013, 02:33 AM

You have two faulty premises: First, that a gun owner should be presumed unsafe until he can prove otherwise; second, that mandatory safety training could or would have prevented this incident.

A person should be presumed fit to exercise their fundamental rights until proven otherwise, even if that proof comprises damage to people or property. If you accept the idea that people need to be coddled to behave properly, the logical leap to statism is a simple one.

In the first case, the presumption is only that the potential gun owner should be exposed to basic firearms safety. Whether he is safe or unsafe without it is not an answerable question apriori, therefore it is also a moot one. I think we all can agree that safety training is, in general, a good thing, and I also think we can agree that there are some folks not getting any safety training whatsoever.

In the 2nd case, you are correct that I am presuming that safety training would help prevent accidents such as this, although possibly not this particular one. I do not see this as faulty, but rather logical. We all train our children on firearms safety by this same premise.

A person's right to own firearms is not in question. Their right to discharge them in public areas, without having basic safety training is what is concerning. Several years ago, my state implemented hunter safety requirements for new hunters, born after a certain date. Would you consider this to be a violation of fundamental rights?

Twiki357

April 3, 2013, 02:39 AM

I would agree with mrvco in post 13. But also in middle school and include some range time with BB/pellet guns or 22's. Not only from a safety standpoint, but with more general familiarity by more people in their youth, maybe there would be fewer antis.

PabloJ

April 3, 2013, 02:41 AM

The lack of training requirements is shocking. Where I live one can actually obtain carry permit for handgun w/o passing shooting qualification tests.:eek:

JRH6856

April 3, 2013, 02:50 AM

A person's right to own firearms is not in question. Their right to discharge them in public areas, without having basic safety training is what is concerning. Several years ago, my state implemented hunter safety requirements for new hunters, born after a certain date. Would you consider this to be a violation of fundamental rights?

It is well to keep in mind that the 2A protects the right to keep and bear arms. Use of those arms is not mentioned and is, and always has been, highly subject to regulation.

316SS

April 3, 2013, 03:26 AM

In the first case, the presumption is only that the potential gun owner should be exposed to basic firearms safety. Whether he is safe or unsafe without it is not an answerable question apriori, therefore it is also a moot one.

You are proposing to place a condition on the exercise of a fundamental right. Of course you assume a new gun owner is unsafe, or else what is the basis for requiring him to receive training?

In the 2nd case, you are correct that I am presuming that safety training would help prevent accidents such as this, although possibly not this particular one. I do not see this as faulty, but rather logical. We all train our children on firearms safety by this same premise.

It is telling that you equate requiring government sanctioned training with parenting a child. Statism often masquerades as paternal beneficence.

A person's right to own firearms is not in question. Their right to discharge them in public areas, without having basic safety training is what is concerning.

Maybe you are advocating that people be required to receive training to shoot on a private (open to the public) range? I have no problem with a private range requiring shooters to receive training; that is their right. My issue is with a government mandated training regime. A right with conditions has another name: a privilege.

Several years ago, my state implemented hunter safety requirements for new hunters, born after a certain date. Would you consider this to be a violation of fundamental rights?

Straw man argument. Hunter education is required as a condition of exercising what is generally accepted as the privilege of hunting.

I think safety training is great. I have obtained it, to satisfy myself that I can handle firearms safely, recognizing that it is my personal responsibility to do so. My problem is with the mandatory part. As members of a(n ostensibly) free society, we accept the potential for mishaps. We cannot nor should we try to legislate away every hazard in our lives at the expense of our freedoms.

ngnrd

April 3, 2013, 03:31 AM

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
See that "well regulated" part? That's where the training comes in. Should that training be government mandated? I don't know. I have a hard time with that. But knowing how to safely handle a firearm is definitely part of being a responsible gun owner.

cheeze

April 3, 2013, 03:54 AM

More government is never a good idea. We are suppressed by so many restrictions, regulations, mandates, etc... until nothing we do is legal and everything we do is a liability with lawyers and insurance companies that it's ridiculous.

We are responsible for our own actions. Period. Our justice system doesn't seem to take that view much anymore, nor does our govt or society. Parents don't teach responsibility, and society takes over from there. That's where the problem lies.

HorseSoldier

April 3, 2013, 04:01 AM

See that "well regulated" part? That's where the training comes in. Should that training be government mandated? I don't know. I have a hard time with that. But knowing how to safely handle a firearm is definitely part of being a responsible gun owner.

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but my understanding reading things written by those who are, is that "well regulated" is 18th century speak for "well equipped" not well organized, disciplined, or trained. (Aspects of those issues were seperately addressed under various militia laws and acts that were law of the land down through the years before the formal establishment of the National Guard as the organized side of the militia.)

Rock185

April 3, 2013, 04:41 AM

I will say that I was in a CCW class here in Arizona and a couple of license renewal classes. It was SCARY folks. Most got their CCWs though. Some were undoubtedly hunters, but had NO familiarity with the use of a handgun as a SD weapon. As just one example, one old woman, Must have been nearly as old as me, covered a bunch of us with the muzzle of her gun. She was animatedly upset that she had done very badly on the live fire portion of the class. She emphasized this by shaking and pointing her gun, as one would shake one's finger, at her husband and others, saying that it was his fault because he made her nervous. The instructor called me a couple days later to let me know he did not pass her. Maybe there is something to mandatory safety training. Wouldn't the press have loved reporting that someone had been shot in a CCW class, even with an official Government approved and certified instructor present...

General Geoff

April 3, 2013, 05:32 AM

Freedom is inherently dangerous. So is life. I'd rather deal with dangerous freedom than dangerous subjugation.

ngnrd

April 3, 2013, 05:39 AM

I'm not a constitutional scholar, but my understanding reading things written by those who are, is that "well regulated" is 18th century speak for "well equipped" not well organized, disciplined, or trained. (Aspects of those issues were seperately addressed under various militia laws and acts that were law of the land down through the years before the formal establishment of the National Guard as the organized side of the militia.)
Neither am I a Constitutional scholar. But, I would argue that the term "well regulated" does indeed encompass "organised, disciplined, and trained". And as support in that position, I offer the following, taken from a DOJ treatise (http://constitution.org/uslaw/doj/doj_statement.htm) on the subject written in 2004 and published online at Constitution.org :
[T]he standard for a "well regulated Militia," as opposed to a well-regulated select militia, or well-regulated army, presupposes the background meaning of "Militia" by taking into account the body's large size and varied source. As the Militia Act of 1792 contemplated, it might be enough to have a county officer enroll persons and ensure that they possessed arms and knew how to use them through basic training once or twice a year. Similarly, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 defined "a well-regulated militia" as simply being "composed of the body of the people, trained to arms." (115) And the first New York Constitution declared that "the militia" should always "be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service" because "it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it."

Again, I'm no Constitutional scholar, but this treatise is a good (although dry) read about the original meaning and intent of the Second Amendment.

General Geoff

April 3, 2013, 05:52 AM

I'd also like to point out that mandatory safety training, if such a thing were to become a popular idea, would best be implemented (as mentioned earlier) in grade school. Firearm safety and marksmanship training would be a valuable addition to public education. Though to be fair, I think public education in general should also not be mandatory.

justice06rr

April 3, 2013, 06:12 AM

If Sex Ed in public schools is mandatory, then so should be firearms education. They are both safety training for the safe exercise of a fundamental right.

That's funny, because you still see women get pregnant regardless of sex ed. I work at a large hospital L&D and I've seen girls as young as 14 pregnant.

Telling people to use protection doesn't guarantee they'll use it.

I'm afraid the issue with firearms safety is more about using common sense, not mandatory training.

Bill_Shelton

April 3, 2013, 06:23 AM

Well...it's a shame the guy blew his finger off, but I don't know how training could help. What, we gonna' tell people that guns are dangerous so keep out of the way of the barrel?

If Sex Ed in public schools is mandatory, then so should be firearms education. They are both safety training for the safe exercise of a fundamental right.

Well...actually, its a bit different. I mean, once fired you can't call a bullet back, but you can call a pregnancy back.

http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles/a94_w10.jpg

JRH6856

April 3, 2013, 10:02 AM

Well...actually, its a bit different. I mean, once fired you can't call a bullet back, but you can call a pregnancy back.

True, but I was thinking more of the dangers of STDs. HIV is a bit harder to recall.

Torian

April 3, 2013, 10:10 AM

No.

We should not punish the masses for the carelessness or stupidity of a few. In addition, I would never trust the majority of our politicians to set appropriate standards for firearm training.

I view it as just another tool that liberals will utilize in their attempt to hamstring the 2nd amendment, along with other such ridiculous proposals as ammo taxes, ammo tracing, ammo registry, firearm insurance, mental health review certificates, etc.

I'm not out there to be a police officer or some state or federal agent. The weapon is for my personal protection only; it has no proactive role. Save the training for the professionals who need it as a requirement of their job.

My home state of Texas wanted to charge me 100 bucks and take away a weekend for training required to get my CCW. I declined, and got my CCW permit from FL instead. They are much easier to work with when it comes to showing competency handling a firearm.

MErl

April 3, 2013, 10:17 AM

"free" classes on gun safety would be a good use for the existing sin tax on new firearms. (better to just remove the tax but that wont happen)

Mandatory, no way. But what if your new gun came with a voucher good for a 1 hour safety class. Some people would use them.

Even if it came with a link to youtube explaining the new gun in detail. Start with basic safety and operation, build up to detail stripping. Essentially the manual in modern format.

12131

April 3, 2013, 10:22 AM

Right, more government controlling our lives.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, after mandatory training, shall not be infringed. Yay!

JRH6856

April 3, 2013, 10:22 AM

But what if your new gun came with a voucher good for a 1 hour safety class. Some people would use them.

What if it just came with the class on DVD? Some people would watch it, some would even pay attention and learn. Others would just toss it in the trash with the manual, just as they would the voucher.

Ryanxia

April 3, 2013, 10:23 AM

That's too bad. While I agree safety training should be done (if you weren't taught as a child like many of us) I still say NO on making it a law. Once the government has that requirement in the bag they can 'amend' it to as extreme requirements as they want.

Fryerpower

April 3, 2013, 10:28 AM

I don't particularly care for the fact that shooting is a requirement for a HCP in Tennessee.

People do stupid stuff. Hopefully they or bystanders don't get hurt.

I've seen that short amount of required training & shooting be that teachable moment that potentially saved a finger/life later. I am not a fan of mandatory anything brecause of the ability to track, control, and limit who has access to guns, but the benefits of even a short class are real.

I have been working with my son for the last year, starting at age 9. Yes it is fun shooting stuff, but the real point of it was to teach safe gun handling. It takes time to drill into their heads the rules and why the rules exist.

Jim

Spdracr39

April 3, 2013, 10:51 AM

They sell cars to people without drivers licenses too. It is wrong and were I the salesman I would not do it but I don't think we need anymore mandatory anything.

Jlr2267

April 3, 2013, 11:00 AM

I like the idea of safety education in school. When I was in high school in TN, part of health education was a day on gun/hunter safety taught by local DNR. We even went down and shot clays over the old football field. Times have sure changed.

Mandatory anything does seem repulsive, but I honestly do not see the current situation as optimal (or even reasonable). I would not want someone I know to be unfamiliar with guns to buy a firearm without at least offering to show them proper handling/safety. Seems irresponsible to do so.

Outlaw Man

April 3, 2013, 11:14 AM

Could I support firearms education in schools? Absolutely.

Should an adult be forced to take a training class before he purchases a firearm? No way.

Just as I can decline consultation from my doctor or pharmacist about the dangers of some medication I'm about to take, I should be able to decline training for firearms if I see fit. In both cases, I'm still responsible for the negative consequences of my actions.

I never took a safety course. To be honest, I remember very little of what my Dad taught me about firearms safety, other than don't point it at anybody. I took it upon myself to study and ask questions. There are lots of free training opportunities out there for those who wish to use them.

Even after decades of training, if you accidentally shoot yourself or someone else, you still have to live with the consequences.

Drail

April 3, 2013, 11:41 AM

The problem is simply "who" writes the training requirements? If it ends up being the same idiots who write the driving tests we use then, NO!

morcey2

April 3, 2013, 12:40 PM

"Mandatory" and "shall not be infringed" don't go together.

I think every first-time gun owner should get at least a little bit of gun safety training, but making it mandatory is a non-starter. I'm an NRA Certified Trainer, so I'd likely benefit from a mandate like that, but I fight against any requirement like that.

Matt

JamieC

April 3, 2013, 02:07 PM

Just because one has the 'right' to own a firearm, doesn't mean they have the ability. We all have the right to walk into Home Depot, among the things sold there, circular saws, table saws, chain saws, ladders. We all know people who shouldn't have access to any of those things. Just because the local Suzuki motorcycle dealership will sell you a 180+ mph Hayabusa doesn't mean you have the ability to ride it, you have the right to own it. Having a gun in your own house if you live alone is one thing, carrying one in public around people, (like you and me), is another. We've all seen people with more money than brains get the urge to buy a gun. They go buy a custom Les Baer, alligator skin holster, Zombie Max bullets. Can't find the time or money to actually go shoot, (range fees are "ridiculous"), train, "those criminals want $200 for a day of training?". Just the kind of idiot I want around when he/she feels threatened and decides it's time to pull the gun and 'defend' themselves. I don't really want the government involved with this at all, but....what to do?

JRH6856

April 3, 2013, 02:33 PM

Just the kind of idiot I want around when he/she feels threatened and decides it's time to pull the gun and 'defend' themselves. I don't really want the government involved with this at all, but....what to do?

In theory you know you should trust people to do the right thing. In fact, you know you can't. So yes, "what to do?" is indeed the question.

Mauserguy

April 3, 2013, 06:31 PM

We have a mandatory training program in California and it is rather dumb. When you buy a handgun the clerk will demonstrate how to handle it, load it, etc.. You then have to repeat what he showed you. It all takes about three minutes and will do nothing to stop a stupid person from later ignoring basic safety protocals.

I don't see the benefit of mandatory training. If a person is receptive to training, they will seek it out. If a person is not interested, they won't get anything out of training. It has no benefit.
Mauserguy

thorazine

April 3, 2013, 06:48 PM

Another vote for...

[X] No.

oneounceload

April 3, 2013, 07:09 PM

No to mandatory, buy maybe every gun store should take a minute with every sale and show the customer how to load, unload, clear, etc.

JurisCani

April 3, 2013, 08:15 PM

Mandatory for what - simply exercising a constitutional right? Who would administer/track such testing. How would it be enforced? NO TO MANDATORY TRAINING. If a private range wants to make a safety class mandatory for membership that is another matter and is fine.

Plan2Live

April 3, 2013, 08:29 PM

Here's a twist, in Charleston, SC a woman who had been deemed mentally unstable slipped through a crack in the background check system and purchased a semi-automatic handgun and ammunition. She loaded the magazine, inserted it into the pistol then went to a local school and drew the pistol, pointed it at someone and pulled the trigger. Because she had failed to rack the slide and chamber a round no one was hurt. But if she had taken mandatory training.........?

I vote No.

As a volunteer Range Safety Officer at a public range, I see appaling gun handling skills. While taking my NRA Basic Pistol Instructor Certification Course I was taught that less than 5% of all gun owners in America ever get any professional training.

I still vote No and apparently so do 95% of all gun owners.

Agsalaska

April 3, 2013, 08:32 PM

No way Jose. The last thing we need is another law to protect us from ourselves. :banghead:

JRH6856

April 3, 2013, 09:15 PM

will do nothing to stop a stupid person from later ignoring basic safety protocals.

Nothing will. You can lead a mind to knowledge but you can't make it think.

kludge

April 4, 2013, 05:40 PM

Lucky for him, he had just turned the gun away from pointing directly at his gut when it fired. He appeared to have not even a slight hint that anything he was doing was dangerous...could have just as easily shot another patron.

And you didn't yell "CEASE FIRE!"?

GambJoe

April 4, 2013, 06:15 PM

Mistakes happen. Even to the best of us.

What I can't figure out is why people bring children to the shooting range? They shouldn't be where things like this, or worse could happen.

No to mandatory training.

Averageman

April 4, 2013, 06:16 PM

This used to be a Fathers job.
A trip to the range, a long discussion about responcability and being a Man is all about. A story or too told from his personal experiance in the Military. Sit an old pumpkin on a fence post and show him what an "accident" might look like if you drop your guard.
Made a heck of an impression on me.

I can't tell you how quickly it can go from bad to really scarey bad.
I was Safety on a Night Fam Fire for some deploying Reserve unit, in the dark I observed a Soldier leave the prone and Yelled "NO" "Cease Fire" as I began moving quickly in the direction to stop "him" from getting up.
No! Ceasefire! Freeze! had no effect, as I got to the now standing and turning Soldier, I got the muzzle of the M16 jammed in to my face and up in to my Kevlar.
A double feed and no training or observation of the range rules or the range safety briefing.
Come to find out "He" was a "She" and hadn't been to Basic yet.

9MMare

April 5, 2013, 04:54 AM

No. As far as I know there is no data that shows any difference in gun incidents (not crime) in states with mandatory training and states without. So then why force training...time, costs, etc on people? Why get more govt involvement? Why assume people are not getting training on their own, or didnt already?

The only study I read of was between WA and OR. OR requires training, WA does not. But OR had more gun-related accidents...while WA has a higher population and more people with CC permits.

Much of this was covered recently on another gun forum.

9MMare

April 5, 2013, 05:00 AM

Yes, I guess that's the part that really bothers me. He lost his finger so we can shrug it off as a learning experience and give a Darwin Award. But what about the next one...maybe an innocent by-stander gets a permanent headache...can we, as responsible gun owners, offer no solutions to this growing problem, and live with that? I think we have to come to grips with the reality that we, as a community, need to offer real solutions before other solutions are imposed on us.

Since I havent seen that 'mandatory' training makes any difference, why enforce it? It just assumes that people do not get their own training OR that some specific level of forced training works better. But there is no evidence that I've seen to support this.

9MMare

April 5, 2013, 05:09 AM

In the first case, the presumption is only that the potential gun owner should be exposed to basic firearms safety. Whether he is safe or unsafe without it is not an answerable question apriori, therefore it is also a moot one. I think we all can agree that safety training is, in general, a good thing, and I also think we can agree that there are some folks not getting any safety training whatsoever.

In the 2nd case, you are correct that I am presuming that safety training would help prevent accidents such as this, although possibly not this particular one. I do not see this as faulty, but rather logical. We all train our children on firearms safety by this same premise.

A person's right to own firearms is not in question. Their right to discharge them in public areas, without having basic safety training is what is concerning. Several years ago, my state implemented hunter safety requirements for new hunters, born after a certain date. Would you consider this to be a violation of fundamental rights?

No one I have ever heard of thinks people shouldnt get training. The discussion is about 'mandatory' training.

So the assumptions are that people dont or wont get training on their own? Maybe grew up with it, hunted, self-defense, whatever? And the other assumption *seems to be* for some...that making it mandatory would make a difference...when there is no evidence to support that (that I'm aware of).

JRH6856

April 5, 2013, 05:18 AM

So the assumptions are that people dont or wont get training on their own? Maybe grew up with it, hunted, self-defense, whatever? And the other assumption *seems to be* for some...that making it mandatory would make a difference...when there is no evidence to support that (that I'm aware of).

You can make kids go to school. The ones that want to learn, do, and the ones that don't, don't. Regardless of how mandatory it is.

9MMare

April 5, 2013, 05:18 AM

The problem is simply "who" writes the training requirements? If it ends up being the same idiots who write the driving tests we use then, NO!

That's another thing that varies from state to state...and again....how much training is 'enough?'

How do we know? Where is the data?

9MMare

April 5, 2013, 05:26 AM

No to mandatory, buy maybe every gun store should take a minute with every sale and show the customer how to load, unload, clear, etc.

I think that's nice but I certainly wouldnt put that burden...or responsibility...on gun shops. Who says they know every firearm? Or that the staff there at the moment knows 'that' gun?

Not to mention that I have gotten such assistance any time I've asked for it in my local gun shop, I have no problem asking.... but would many men ask? Probably many would just assume they knew as much or more than the staff and rebuff it. (And some would know more, of course)

sota

April 5, 2013, 08:36 AM

you know, I'm not old enough to know but, didn't they used to teach something about firearms in school? All this talk of making schools safer why aren't we starting with the little ones right there already?

and not to belittle the OP... I would hope I would have said something (quite loudly) to stop the sequence of events, but then I don't know how fast it all occurred or if he got stuck in the "he's not really being that stupid is he?" mental freeze.

sucks all around though... he hurt himself, traumatized some youngin's and everyone around him, and gave that much more fuel to the anti's.

gdcpony

April 5, 2013, 09:03 AM

This is one of those things I sit on the fence of. I teach my kids and would not let them handle ANYTHING (Think chainsaws are more safe than guns to the user?) without me having first let them know how dangerous it could be.

Do I beleive it should be mandatory? I say let the local demograpghic decide. One of the things that has hurt our nation is a fed gov't that thinks it should have rulle over everything. Some things are best left to the state and locals to decide as they can customize things to that area's demographic. The fed's just screw it up by trying to compare the woods of Ohio to the ranchlands of Montana to the metroplolis of LA and saying, "This will work for all." Get more power to local governments and out of the fed.

This is a good example. Do my children need the same level of "mandatory" training as a kid from say New York City? Not likely. If it was forced that is where the level needs to be decided. Personally, I would hope anyone would just KNOW it was a good idea to seek it out.

Broken Anvil

April 5, 2013, 01:54 PM

A lesson earned is a lesson learned.

At least he shot himself.

Trunk Monkey

April 6, 2013, 10:12 AM

My experience has been that all the firearms safety you need to know can be taught in five minutes or not at all. If you don’t grasp the 4 rules in that time you never will.

I have never purchased a brand new firearm that didn’t come with an instruction manual and most firearms companies will send you one for free. As was stated up thread, if the shooter didn’t take the basic precaution of reading that manual before loading the firearm all the safety in the world wouldn’t have sunk in.

Several states require absolutely no training or demonstration of competency what so ever. You do not even have to demonstrate that you have ever even fired a gun before being issued a permit. All you have to do is pay the fee and submit to a background check and you walk out the door legal to carry a concealed firearm.

So, if state mandated training is so important to the safety of the gun carrying public why don’t we have disproportionately higher firearms accident (not willful negligence or criminal misuse but accidents) rates in those states?

rskent

April 6, 2013, 10:16 AM

In a word: NO

Bartholomew Roberts

April 6, 2013, 10:35 AM

Exactly who would benefit from making training mandatory? Is there a large class of people out there who own or use a firearm and have no clue how to safely operate a firearm but will not seek training unless it is mandatory?

It seems to me that if you don't voluntarily seek training before using a potentially lethal tool, you probably aren't the type of person who cares much about mandatory training either. Not to mention that accidental gun injuries are at their lowest level in years despite increased gun ownership (around 500 fatalities per year).

So you've got to weigh the very limited benefits of a "best-case" scenario against the more probable likelihood that the same people who are trying to make it illegal to leave a gun with your spouse while you are out of town in the name of "common sense background checks" are going to take "common sense gun safety" and use it to make owning a gun difficult and burdensome.

Torian

April 6, 2013, 10:46 AM

No training "requirement". Make it available and recommended it to new and unfamiliar shooters.

We don't receive a CCW to proactively engage criminals and protect the public like LEOs...it is for personal defense of self and loved ones.

The whole training requirement is even made more absurd since it often ends with some type of range "qualification". I have to qualify with an M4 because it's my job...just like a police officer has to do the same with their duty weapon.

9MMare

April 6, 2013, 03:08 PM

My experience has been that all the firearms safety you need to know can be taught in five minutes or not at all. If you donít grasp the 4 rules in that time you never will.

Interesting. Learning to safely clear a jammed weapon in that 5 minutes? The safe way(s) to draw and holster your gun? Safely drop the hammer on a loaded chamber? Things like that?

That must be the Evelyn Wood Speed Safety course!

hang fire

April 6, 2013, 03:13 PM

No problem, next we need 1st amendment safety training for speaking and writing.

JRH6856

April 6, 2013, 06:07 PM

No problem, next we need 1st amendment safety training for speaking and writing.
And most of us get it, starting when we first learn to talk and and continuing until the last day of school. Then some of us go to college and major in journalism...

lordjack

April 6, 2013, 06:28 PM

you can't fix stupid :cuss:

HorseSoldier

April 6, 2013, 06:28 PM

For those who live in states where CCW involves mandatory training, what is the consensus? Waste of time? Unreasonable burden on the citizen? Helpful for the truly gun naive?

Trunk Monkey

April 6, 2013, 07:26 PM

Interesting. Learning to safely clear a jammed weapon in that 5 minutes? The safe way(s) to draw and holster your gun? Safely drop the hammer on a loaded chamber? Things like that?

That must be the Evelyn Wood Speed Safety course!

I think you're aware of the overall intent of my post

TennJed

April 6, 2013, 08:05 PM

Does mandatory training equal mandatory learning. Until it does, no

Torian

April 6, 2013, 08:29 PM

For those who live in states where CCW involves mandatory training, what is the consensus? Waste of time? Unreasonable burden on the citizen? Helpful for the truly gun naive?
For my state of TX:

- Waste of time for any shooter with experience
- Unreasonable burden in terms of time (2 days) money (100 bucks), and qualification requirements
- Helpful for the gun naive, but not worth the above barriers

GBExpat

April 6, 2013, 08:50 PM

The lack of training requirements is shocking. Where I live one can actually obtain carry permit for handgun w/o passing shooting qualification tests.:eek:
Quite frankly, I was delighted to find that I was not going to have to jump thru class/range hoops to acquire my most recent series of CHLs in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

mokin

April 6, 2013, 09:12 PM

Short answer: NO.

To expand that answer, there are a lot of people who really need some sort of training and don't know how/where or don't care to get it. At the range I've seen many people who have no business handling a firearm. Some asked for help which I gladly gave them. Others have asked for band aids, which we also had on hand. None of the injuries were serious. But to make training mandatory I think would be wrong.

c1ogden

April 6, 2013, 09:34 PM

I'd like to say that it should be mandatory but we all know that if it becomes mandatory then corrupt government agencies will prohibit gun ownership by making the training unavailable. I believe that is what Chicago was doing in an effort to maintain it's status as the most corrupt city in America.

beatledog7

April 6, 2013, 10:14 PM

Firearms training is critically important, BUT...I'm opposed to making it mandatory because:

(1) I see too many students in mandatory classes of various kinds that fail to apply themselves BECAUSE they begrudge having to take the class. They get nothing from such a class.

(2) On principle, if we are to prescribe training for gun ownership, then we'd have to do it for other Constitutionally protected God-given rights: speaking one's mind, attending religious services, peacefully assembling, avoiding being illegally searched...while some of that might seem like a good idea--provided it's voluntary--coercing people to take a class in order to be allowed to exercise an explicit right that's inherent in one's humanity is wrong on its face.

JRH6856

April 6, 2013, 10:52 PM

(2) On principal, if we are to prescribe training for gun ownership, then we'd have to do it for other Constitutionally protected God-given rights: speaking one's mind, attending religious services, peacefully assembling, avoiding being illegally searched...while some of that might seem like a good idea--provided it's voluntary--coercing people to take a class in order to be allowed to exercise an explicit right that's inherent in one's humanity is wrong on its face.

Except for religious training, much of that training is already compusory. It's called education. That you get education is compulsory. Where you get it is voluntary (including home schooling) and the choice can be based on what is being taught. Just saying...

9MMare

April 6, 2013, 11:09 PM

I think you're aware of the overall intent of my post

Maybe, maybe not. There is certainly more to safety, esp. when carrying a gun in public for self-defense, than the 4 rules.

beatledog7

April 6, 2013, 11:14 PM

I don't agree. Children attend school or get home schooled, but what they are taught is not of the same nature as firearms training.

A HS civics class (where, in theory, students are educated in Constitutional basics) serves to teach students exactly what the teacher is directed to teach them, and from what I see from my young college students, little of it is of any lasting value. There's also darn little if any opportunity for students to try their hand at exercising what they've supposedly learned.

Training is designed to equip a person to deal with what could happen, and properly includes hands-on exercises. What most of our children get is indoctrination in how to avoid the same.

JRH6856

April 6, 2013, 11:21 PM

What most of our children get is indoctrination in how to avoid the same.

Are you referring to education or firearms training? Because that is exactly what they would get from government mandated firearms training.

Bubbles

April 7, 2013, 12:06 AM

Speaking of mandated firearms training, does no one here remember "I am the only one professional enough..." BANG ???

Life is hard. It's harder, more painful, and more expensive if you're stupid.

beatledog7

April 7, 2013, 12:29 AM

I was referring to public education, and you're right--[federal] government mandated firearms training would be government run, and quite likely worse than useless.

Guy B. Meredith

April 7, 2013, 12:45 AM

I'm all for mandated safety training. "You don't know what you don't know." There is no sense in allowing people to be endangered by someone who does not even realize they need training or safe habits.

I prefer to see new shooters have a good experience so they come back and invite friends rather than having a bad experience and confirming prejudices that it is not safe for citizens to have firearms.

Oregon is proposing mandating live fire training for CHL with courses from NRA certified instructors. NRA training, local clubs and merchants, not something put on by another bureaucrat.

I DO think that if the training is required we are obligated to make sure training is available withing a reasonable distance, at reasonable hours. I also think we need to make it happen for the less affluent so that yet another tax, fee, etc. does not end up creating de facto discrimination.

JTHunter

April 7, 2013, 12:49 AM

All the gun or safety training in the world can't replace a working brain and common sense.

JRH6856

April 7, 2013, 12:53 AM

Nope. can't replace what isn't there to begin with. ;)

J-Bar

April 7, 2013, 01:21 PM

Why didn't you interject after he had pointed it at himself? That's what we call a teachable moment.

I disagree. The teachable moment is before he picks the gun up.

Let's say you see this in the shooting bay next to you...hand over the muzzle and trying to clear a jam. You yell "Cease Fire". The guy looks up, and then the gun fires. He claims you distracted him and sues you for his injuries. So much for your good deed.

The best thing to do is leave the area as quickly as you can. If there is a range officer present, inform the person who is responsible. Otherwise find something to hide behind.

GBExpat

April 7, 2013, 01:36 PM

All the gun or safety training in the world can't replace a working brain and common sense.
There it is.

holdencm9

April 8, 2013, 10:39 AM

I disagree. The teachable moment is before he picks the gun up.

Let's say you see this in the shooting bay next to you...hand over the muzzle and trying to clear a jam. You yell "Cease Fire". The guy looks up, and then the gun fires. He claims you distracted him and sues you for his injuries. So much for your good deed.

The best thing to do is leave the area as quickly as you can. If there is a range officer present, inform the person who is responsible. Otherwise find something to hide behind.

It's also best to avoid providing CPR to someone having a heart attack, or push someone out of the way of a vehicle. :rolleyes:

22-rimfire

April 8, 2013, 10:46 AM

No hands over the muzzle EVER once a gun is loaded. Jammed is loaded until unjammed. These people should never rack a round into the chamber with their hand over the muzzle.... receipe for getting shot. I have had a few go off when you chamber them... always pay attention and keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction. Into your hand is not a safe direction unless you want to be a human backstop.

Trunk Monkey

April 8, 2013, 01:57 PM

Maybe, maybe not. There is certainly more to safety, esp. when carrying a gun in public for self-defense, than the 4 rules.

Iím happy to admit I oversimplified my remarks, although I would like to point out that simple adherence to the four rules would have prevented the entire incident, but I donít see how this side discussion adds to the OPís overall intent which was to ask if safety training should be mandated.

So please allow me to restate my remarks in a way that (hopefully) wonít offend you.

It has been my overall experience that the type of person that would benefit from safety training will seek it out on their own anyway and the type of person that would not benefit wouldnít put any of what he/she learned in the class into practice anyway.

I believe the potential for abuse far outweighs any perceived benefit.

Good day.

jimmyraythomason

April 8, 2013, 02:51 PM

Mandatory Safety Training, yes or no?
In a word...NO.

9MMare

April 10, 2013, 01:49 AM

Iím happy to admit I oversimplified my remarks, although I would like to point out that simple adherence to the four rules would have prevented the entire incident, but I donít see how this side discussion adds to the OPís overall intent which was to ask if safety training should be mandated.

So please allow me to restate my remarks in a way that (hopefully) wonít offend you.

It has been my overall experience that the type of person that would benefit from safety training will seek it out on their own anyway and the type of person that would not benefit wouldnít put any of what he/she learned in the class into practice anyway.

I believe the potential for abuse far outweighs any perceived benefit.

Good day.

I was not offended. (?)

I was trying to be constructive, as I was not sure that your flip, oversimplified statement was. (I was thinking of the overall thread subject...mandatory training, not the specific incident)

I'm not the forum police, I was just expressing my opinion. I also agree with your perception of people and training in general.

we are not amused

April 10, 2013, 06:34 PM

I am against mandatory training unless it is done in the Public schools, but as a condition to own or buy a gun, no!

I am very much in favor of getting training, but not as a way to make it more difficult to own a weapon, which despite all the good intentions on the part of some, are the purpose of many.

Besides, it will be like a lot of Hunter Safety courses, a small amount of useful information, swamped by a huge amount of BS.